1996 PLP 1706 (MLD)
ALLAH BAKHSH and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD SHAFI‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1996 PLP 1706 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Riaz Hussain, J |
| Parties | ALLAH BAKHSH and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD SHAFI‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 1706 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1996 PLP 1706 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Riaz Hussain, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 PLP 1706 (MLD) (ALLAH BAKHSH and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD SHAFI‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.30‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115‑‑‑Suit for pre7emption‑‑ Question of limitation‑‑‑Sale‑deed was registered on 8‑11‑1987 while suit for pre‑emption was filed on 8‑11‑1988 i.e. one year from the execution and registration of sale‑deed‑‑‑Plaintiff himself alleged that suit for pre‑emption was filed under Punjab Pre‑emption Act, 1913‑‑‑Provision of S.30, Punjab Pre- emption Act, 1913 was declared as against Islamic Injunctions, by Supreme Court in PLD 1986 SC 360‑‑‑Suit filed almost after one year of registration of sale‑deed was thus, time‑barred‑‑‑Even if Islamic Law of Shufa was prevalent during the intervening period viz. between Ist day of August, 1986 and 28th March, 1990, any suit filed after expiry of four months during that period would be regarded as time‑barred‑‑‑Suit was thus, rightly dismissed in circumstances. PLD 1990 SC 865; Government of N.‑W.F.P. through Secretary, Law Department v. Malik Said Kamal Shah PLD 1986 SC 360 and Haji Rana Muhammad Shabbir Ahmad Khan v. Government of Punjab Province, Lahore PLD 1994 SC 1 rel. Mian Bashir Ahmad Bhatti, Advocate.
Judgment & Decree
4. Section 30 of the Punjab Pre‑emption Act, 1913 was declared as against the Islamic Injunctions and therefore, this suit filed almost after one year of the registration of the sale‑deed was hopelessly time‑barred. Reliance can be made to 'Government of N.‑W.F.P. through Secretary, Law Department v. Malik Said Kamal Shah PLD 1986 SC 360 (Shariat Appellant Bench) wherein it was held that the law of limitation was a' substantive law. It was further observed that the period provided under section 30 of Punjab Pre‑emption Act. 1913 was .not in accordance with the Islamic law. The observation made therein in the last formal part is as follows:‑‑‑
5. In Suo Motu Shariat Review Petition No.1 ‑R of 1989: PLD 1990 SC 865 (Shariat Appellant Bench), following observation was made:‑‑‑
6. Section 30 of the Punjab Pre‑emption Act, 1991 reads as follows:‑‑‑ "
30. Limitation. ‑‑‑The period of limitation for a suit to enforce a right of pre‑emption under this Act shall be four months from the date‑‑‑ (a) of the registration of the sale‑deed; (b) of the attestation of the mutation, if the sale is made otherwise than through a registered sale‑deed; (c) on which the vendee takes physical possession of the property if the sale is made otherwise than through a registered sale‑deed or a mutation; or . (d) of knowledge by the pre‑emptor, if the sale is not covered under paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) or paragraph (c).
7. In Haji Rana Muhammad Shabbir Ahmad Khan v. Government of Punjab Province, Lahore PLD 1994 SC 1 section 35(2) of Punjab Pre‑emption Act, 1991 was declared as repugnant to Injunctions of Islam. The relevant portion of the judgment is as follows:‑‑‑ "(iii) Section 35(2) in so far as it exempts the suits of pre‑emption instituted or pending between 1st day of August, 1986, and 28th March, 1990 from the requirements of Talab‑i‑Muwathabat and because they have extended the period of limitation for such suits to one year. The Appeal No. 12 of 1991 filed by the Government of regard to these three sections is dismissed."
8. Even if any Islamic Law of Shufa was prevalent, that if any abovementioned intervening period, I am of the considered opinion, that would suit was filed after the expiry of four months during the said period that would be regarded as time‑barred.
9. Under these circumstances it will be a futile exercise would be the case because even if that procedure is adopted, the result is hereby same. Therefore, this petition is without any substance and is hereby dismissed. A. A. /A‑28/L Revision dismissed